Sustaining family forests in rural landscapes: Rationale, challenges, and an illustration from oregon, USA

Abstract

Family forests are critical components of rural landscapes, societies and economies. In Oregon, where nonindustrial private forests comprise only 16% of the forestland base, the ecological, social and economic impact of this ownership category is disproportionately large. This is due to the landscape position these lands occupy, the diversification they contribute to forest cover and local economies, and the political and cultural connections they provide to urban populations. The significance of this ownership category is even greater in the United States as a whole, where nonindustrial private forests comprise nearly two-thirds of the commercial forestland base, dominating rural landscapes in many regions of the country. Despite the important role family forests play, their ability to contribute to the wellbeing of rural areas is challenged by several dynamic factors, including industrial consolidation in global wood markets, loss of family forestland to corporate ownership, and parcelization and fragmentation of family forestland at the urban fringe. Moreover, family forestry does not enjoy a strong social contract with the American public, which is largely ignorant of the existence of this ownership class. A foundation of broad social approval and appreciation for family forestry is prerequisite to development of policies which can sustain family forestland ownerships and the contributions they make. This paper draws from recent research in Oregon to argue that, whereas most research on nonindustrial private forests has focused on economics and management at the individual producer level, these challenges demand greater attention to the role of family forests in the wider context of landscape, culture and rural economy.

The Size of Forest Holding/Parcelization Problem in Forestry: A Literature Review

“…Other authors cover parcelization in the general context of the size of forest holding problem. Bliss described the two fundamental shifts leading to parcelization: changes in the structure and pattern of private forest ownerships and changes in the social values of the United States as it changes from rural to urban to suburban [134]. He does define the traditional NIPF problem of poor forest management on family forests, leading to poor forest productivity, and the unpredictable behavior of family forest owners.…”

Writing the New West: A Critical Review*

“…As noted above, scholars in economics, geography, and regional development point to recent employment and revenue declines in extractive economies as concomitant with the ascendance of new economies, therefore, a result of an overall ''rural restructuring'' (Nelson 2001(Nelson , 2002Swanson 2004), entailing the ''obsolescence of former modes of organizing and regulating economic activity'' (Bridge 2000:253) and a decline of primary commodity production (Bridge and Jonas 2002). New institutional arrangements have decoupled forests from manufacturing and facilitated the subdivision of productive land for consumptive (higher and better use) development (Bliss 2003;Erickson and Rinehart 2005). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is a paramount example of the transformation from extractive to servicebased economy (Rasker and Hansen 2000).…”

Three decades of forest harvesting along a suburban–rural continuum

“…"Results suggested concern about sprawl among approximately onehalf of the logger respondents in the region, particularly in New Hampshire, where 60% of respondents indicated that there will be less logging in their area in 10 yr because of sprawl." Bliss (2003) argued that family forests are threatened by parcelization and fragmentation at the urban fringe, and this issue is greater than a simple matter of economics or management of a parcel or woodlot. "The role of family forests in the wider context of landscape, culture, and rural economy" warrants attention (Bliss 2003).…”

“…Bliss () argued that family forests are threatened by parcelization and fragmentation at the urban fringe, and this issue is greater than a simple matter of economics or management of a parcel or woodlot. “The role of family forests in the wider context of landscape, culture, and rural economy” warrants attention (Bliss ).…”